4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the reference Court should have granted compensation to the Pomegranate trees on the yield basis by applying appropriate multiplier. Instead, the reference Court simply enhanced the compensation at 80% over and above paid by LAO. He placed reliance on the judgment in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 wherein this Court, basing on the evidence, determined the value of each Pomegranate tree at Rs.2,000/-. He further contended that the acquisition in that case pertains to the year 1977, whereas the notification in the present case is in the year 1992 and that there is time gap of 15 years between the notification in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 and the notification in the present case. He further contended that if 15% escalation price is to be applied, it would come to Rs.16,265/- and that every year the fruit cost is increasing at least 10% on its cost as the Pomegranate is king of fruits, but the appellants-claimants restricted the same to Rs.4,000/-. He further contended that as per the norms of the NABARD, the economic fruit bearing period is 25 years. By the time of notification in the present case, the age of tree is 4 years. He further submitted that as per the decision reported in (2006) 2 SCC 670 life time X income = 25 X 400 = 10,000/-. As per the NABARD, each Pomegranate tree yields 100 to 150 fruits and by the time of notification, each fruit cost is Rs.3/- and even if 150 fruits are taken into account, each tree will yield an income of
